|
Post by Eagle out on Dec 11, 2007 18:18:12 GMT -5
Is it true then that a person wanting to claim a tax deduction is hoping that they can escape their obligations to the government (the people, the state) to subsidize their giving? That is absurd. No, it isn't trying to escape their obligations at all. The higher the income bracket, the more people pay in taxes. Giving to charitable orginizations counts as deductions. In a sense, it gives the person a choice between giving to the government or giving to a charity. Trust me, the government still gets way more than their share.
|
|
|
Post by post it on Dec 11, 2007 18:49:47 GMT -5
Whatever respect I had for you, nathan, is now totally GONE! I can't believe you place the blame on those two children. You are sick! Like I said there are two sides to every story. Evan Jones testified before the court and he told them his side it didn't look like a Cult by what he said as some exes have blamed the 2x2 religion for their personal, mental problems.
Why don't you tell us what you know of the story and perhaps the workers or the friends who were involved story can give us a clearer picture of that family and what really happened.Post the full deposition, and then I will.
|
|
|
Post by nathanb on Dec 11, 2007 23:06:13 GMT -5
Like I said there are two sides to every story. Evan Jones testified before the court and he told them his side it didn't look like a Cult by what he said as some exes have blamed the 2x2 religion for their personal, mental problems.
Why don't you tell us what you know of the story and perhaps the workers or the friends who were involved story can give us a clearer picture of that family and what really happened. Post the full deposition, and then I will. Sorry, it stays as it is.
|
|
|
Post by you are on Dec 12, 2007 10:56:26 GMT -5
You are a dishonest liar.
[glow=red,2,300]Please refrain from name-calling and "hit-and-run" posts on this Board. We do love discussion from people with every view on Christ and the Scripture but will not allow this place to degrade to an "Anti-truth joke" as some of the other boards have.
Every opinion is worthy of discussion as long as the children from the "drive-by" community can behave.[/glow]
[glow=red,1,800]Let's meet in Peace, shall we?[/glow]
Sincerely, Respectfully in Christ,
Richard McFarland Board Administrator
|
|
|
Post by nathanb on Dec 12, 2007 20:57:33 GMT -5
You are a dishonest liar. hmmmmm.... calling me a dishonest liar but you post as anonymous. How honest are you?
|
|
|
Post by easily on Dec 12, 2007 22:52:51 GMT -5
Until you tell the truth, your questions are meaningless.
[glow=blue,2,300]I really am adamant about the childishness here, easily. We welcome intelligent discussion but until and unless you can become somewhat less angry and obsessive I ask you to visit other boards and engage in your name-calling there where the standards are much lower.
You do not have to agree with the way we follow to post here. You don't even have to like this way of Christ, but you must needs be clear and concise in your posts and not stoop to name-calling.[/glow]
Biding you Peace in Jesus,
Richard McFarland,
Board Administrator
|
|
fire
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by fire on Dec 12, 2007 23:33:04 GMT -5
You are a dishonest liar. Please register and join the conversation instead of making petty remarks from the sideline.
|
|
eagle
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by eagle on Dec 13, 2007 8:29:50 GMT -5
Still no answer. It is so aggravating that some one must know the answer and yet won't post. Doesn't anyone have access to a worker close to you? (I do not.) Secrecy?
|
|
|
Post by nathanb on Dec 13, 2007 10:23:51 GMT -5
Still no answer. It is so aggravating that some one must know the answer and yet won't post. Doesn't anyone have access to a worker close to you? (I do not.) Secrecy? What do you mean by no answer? I already told you the answers. What more information do you want? You didn't like the answers were given to you?
|
|
geoff
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by geoff on Dec 13, 2007 15:58:16 GMT -5
Its not always true that the higher the income bracket the more tax people pay. Some countries have a flat rate. In others, the more people earn the more they know about tax avoidance.
But I still maintain that tax deductions for charitable giving are a way to get the government to pay some of your giving, and that in my opinion is against the spirit of the giving.
|
|
|
Post by Richard McFarland on Dec 25, 2007 1:20:14 GMT -5
Its not always true that the higher the income bracket the more tax people pay. Some countries have a flat rate. In others, the more people earn the more they know about tax avoidance.
But I still maintain that tax deductions for charitable giving are a way to get the government to pay some of your giving, and that in my opinion is against the spirit of the giving. geoff,
I believe that your way of looking at the tax question is magnanimous and above reproach. But... I am a certified tax professional here and the tax laws were designed to only "lower your tax burden," not a way to get the Government to pay for your charitable donations. There is a limit to what you may claim. This spurs charitable donations and does not really affect your total tax at all if you consider the tax deduction is just that, a deduction. There is no credit allowed for charitable donations and your deductions are limited to $250.00 without a receipt and 7.5% of your of your gross income if you have receipts to back your claim. By the time the larger deduction is figured in on the Schedule A Itemized Deductions the full amount is lost in the conversions.
This Tax Code was written by the Federal Government and does very little to return much of your taxes to you each year.
Consider this. If you itemize and do not have enough in itemized deductions to offset your standard deduction you will not get the deduction anyway.
My job is to look or EVERY LEGAL deduction and credit my clients qualify for. The whole tax game is a duck hunt and the consumer is the duck!
I think I remembered this right. I have not worked since last season and am in the middle of my refresher course for the 2007 tax year.Wishing all a Prosperous Life in Christ,
Richard
|
|
ram
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by ram on Dec 25, 2007 20:24:08 GMT -5
Geoff,
I appreciate you have experience of many countries which may be influencing your viewpoint, but "normally" in the UK any charitable contributions are made "after" tax has been paid on a person's earnings. The question of getting the Government to pay part of your charitable donations, by and large for most people does not exist in the UK. Often charities ask a contributor to sign a "Deed of Covenant," after a person has contributed or agreed to contribute a certain amount to their charity. This allows the charity to "extend" the person's contribution by the charity claiming back from the Government the tax (22% in the UK) what the person has already paid before the contribution was made.
Usually these matters are a retrospective consideration rather than a means to get the Govt to pay part of a person's free-will offering. In fact many charities will claim that countless millions are lost annually through contributors failing to realise the potential of Deeds of Covenant, etc.
|
|
geoff
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by geoff on Dec 26, 2007 12:01:15 GMT -5
I have had several charities ask me about this and admit to not having uderstood it well. (Thanks Ron), but there's something in me that still resists the idea of diverting money from legitimate taxation to charities on my behalf. Much as taxation galls at times, it is a responsibility we have to pay for the running of the country. Charities have needs for sure, and it could perhaps be argued that their needs are as a result of the government not doing enough? But as citizens we have the responibility (IMO) to pay both.
|
|
ram
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by ram on Dec 26, 2007 14:06:24 GMT -5
Be a "cheerful giver" Geoff ! Besides pleasing God, you will also put smiles on the faces of the charity workers AND the Chancellor ! Now there's a turn up for the books - regarding our income tax deductions as charitable donations !! Might even help the Chancellor to sleep at nights ?
I should have added in my earlier post that some Deeds of Covenant used to qualify for income tax relief when a person included them in their income tax return. I worked for the Inland Revenue for a couple of years in the mid-1970's, however things have probably changed a bit since then. Doing it this way you saved the income tax on the amount you had committed to pay to the charity. At today's rates you would save £2.20 income tax for every tenner you made to the charity, in effect only paying £7.80. Income tax rates were about 38% back then so the tax figures and savings were higher.
The "modern" way of doing it is you commit to paying the tenner or whatever and the charity can claim the £2.20 income tax or whatever has been deducted beforehand from your wages. This way the income tax saving goes to the charity and not in your pocket. Clearly the charities prefer the latter system.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Apr 29, 2008 2:12:50 GMT -5
I didn't seem him placing "blame" on anyone. But you said they committed suicide -- who else is responsible for a suicide but the person doing it? Are you blaming someone else?
They always do.
Anonymity does not imply dishonesty.
geoff, taxes are not "obligations" to the government. Taxes are theft and extortion. That does not mean you should not pay, but let your conscience be your guide. Even aside from that, a "deduction" is something which the government itself 'allows' people to "claim", so even in the government's view claiming a deduction is NOT trying to escape an obligation -- the rather the "obligation" itself is lowered by virtue of the deduction.
In the US, I believe that an organization has to be registered officially as a "501(c)3" organization for members to be able to legally claim tax "deductions". For a church this means officially being registered as a church, and I don't know if the IRS would consider our church to fit that or not. In any case, there are good reasons we should not be. Official "501(c)3" registration places limits on what a church's preachers are 'allowed' by the government to say and the types of events the church is allowed to hold. No church should put itself under government control in this way.
Geoff, it's not the government's money to give. The government is not giving any of the money. The idea, theoretically, is that taxes should not DISCOURAGE charitable giving. The reality is that they still do, because even with deductions, people still have an enormous amount taken from them by the government.
Why are you so concerned that the government gets as much money as possible? What they do get is an enormous chunk of the hard working person's earned money -- far more than any reasonable argument could suggest is right. But if you are really that concerned, you can write the government an extra check beyond what they tell you you "owe" (seriously, I have seen a note on the IRS website saying that they accept "donations", but I am sure your country will accept extra 'taxes' just as readily).
Geoff, the charity's needs are not the result of government's not doing enough. GOVERNMENTS DO TOO MUCH. If government did not do as much as it did, the charities would have a much easier time because people would have that 30% of their income back and they could willingly give MORE to charities which are doing good work.
It is not the role of government to provide for the sick, the widows, the ailing, the lepers. That is the role of the church and private charity. Not only is it morally wrong for the individuals in government to use the machine of government to serve those goals, but it always leads to corruption and inefficiency.
ram, yeah: try claiming your income taxes as deductions on your income. Then pay lower taxes, and consider those taxes as a further deduction. Repeat until taxes = 0. (obviously that won't "work" with government, but it's an interesting exercise in reductio ad absurdum)
|
|